Supreme Court Lays Down Principles Governing Joint Trials in Criminal Cases under CrPC and BNSS  ||  Karnataka HC: Person Joining Festivals of Another Religion Does Not Violate Rights  ||  Himachal Pradesh High Court: Recovery of Money without Proof of Demand Is Not Bribery  ||  Kerala HC: Cognizance Of Rape u/s 376B IPC Needs Complaint by Separated Wife, Not on Police Report  ||  J&K&L HC: Dealership & Lease Agreements Are Separate Contracts and Disputes Must Be Filed Separately  ||  Calcutta High Court: Unemployment Does Not Excuse Able-Bodied Husband from Maintaining His Wife  ||  Ker. HC: Violating the Procedure for Sampling Contraband u/s 53A of Abkari Act Vitiates Prosecution  ||  Delhi High Court: Students with Less Than 75% Attendance Cannot Contest DU Student Union Elections  ||  Delhi High Court: UGC Cannot Debar a University from PhD Admissions under UGC Act  ||  Delhi High Court: MCD's Higher Property Tax on Luxury Hotels Not Arbitrary    

Ranjit Singh Vs. State of H.P. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (22 Jun 2020)

Person charged for higher offence can be punished for lower offence

MANU/HP/0511/2020

Criminal

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Accused-Appellant against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 451, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), wherein Appellant-accused has been convicted under Sections 451, 325 & 307 of IPC, whereas co-Accused have been acquitted. The question involved in present case is whether conviction of Accused-Appellant was sustainable.

It is true that, medical evidence as well as chemical analysis report are corroborative pieces of evidence and conviction can be maintained even in absence of such evidences, if oral depositions of the complainant and other witnesses are found to be reliable, trustworthy, credible, to establish commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Even conviction can be on the basis of sole testimony of injured or eye witnesses depending upon quality thereof.

Essential ingredient to convict an accused under Section 307 of IPC is that he should have done the act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. No reason for intention to cause death has been brought on record. The evidence is also lacking about the knowledge of accused that act, committed by him would have caused death of victim.

In any case, it has been proved on record, beyond reasonable doubt, that accused had caused grievous injuries to the victim voluntarily by using stone as a weapon of offence, which can be used for causing death also and, therefore, essential ingredients for convicting the accused under Section 326 of IPC are available on record. It is a settled law that person charged for higher offence can be punished for lower offence. Therefore, conviction under Section 307 of IPC is converted into conviction under Section 326 of IPC.

Accused was convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000 and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month. Now, conviction of accused under Section 307 of IPC is converted into conviction under Section 326 of IPC. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : CONVICTION   SENTENCE   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved